Barring any last-minute changes, the U.N. General Assembly will soon approve a resolution granting the Palestinian Authority the status of an observer state. Sixty-five years after they rejected the historic decision to establish two states in the Land of Israel, one Jewish and one Palestinian, the Palestinians are trying to turn back time and accept it. The Palestinians' request will win a vast majority. The only way to prevent its approval is to stop it before it is submitted to a vote. But many enlightened countries, with France at the helm, have changed their position from initially opposing the Palestinian bid to supporting it. Sources in New York claim that though the U.S. officially opposes the Palestinian initiative, this time, unlike previous instances, Washington will not go out of its way to prevent a discussion and a resolution. By way of seeking justification for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' request, despite its being in blatant violation of the Oslo Accords, it is possible to say that his demand for recognition of Palestine is mainly aimed at rehabilitating his own floundering image at home. He is being forced to face a reality in which violent Hamas-style terror is rewarded with international support, both in the Arab world and in the West, while his own strategic decision to refrain from using force brings him rejection and makes him less and less relevant. Israel rejects the Palestinian bid, but it is not entirely clear how severely Israel will react. If the Palestinian Authority wants to be sovereign it will have to take responsibility over what happens in its territory. The authority needs to consider whether it wants to bring on itself an economic embargo (which I personally oppose) or to watch Israel impose its own sovereignty over Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. But such harsh responses aren't practical at this time. The likely scenario is that after making some declarations, Israel will simply swallow the bitter pill and back down. U.S. President Barack Obama always talks about resuming peace talks, but there are two historical events to keep in mind, as well as one current argument: Abbas was the proteg of Yasser Arafat when then Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to discuss the division of Jerusalem in 2000. In the eyes of many Israelis this was sacrilegious. But both Palestinian leaders, fearing that peace might be creeping up on them, fled. Later, when Barak insisted that there was "no partner" for peace, the Israeli Left was outraged at him. But it was only because they didn't want to see the truth for what it was. In 2009, then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert presented Abbas with such a generous offer that it came with a warning that no Israeli government would ever offer anything like it (true). Abbas fled, once again. His argument that since Olmert was at the end of his political career his offer was an empty one, was a joke. Governments are obligated to honor agreements made by previous administrations. After all, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took power in 1996, he declared that though it was not his will, he was bound by the Oslo Accords. Both these incidents, however, pale in comparison with the main argument: Abbas blames Netanyahu for refusing to embrace the two-state solution. He has proclaimed that there will be no negotiations as long as Jewish settlements continue to be built. His logic, however, is skewed. After all, in Abbas' mind, even if settlement construction stops, Netanyahu will still evade a peace deal. With this basic assumption, why would he come to the negotiating table, for futile negotiations as he sees them, even if Israel stops building in Ofra and Beit El- Abbas suffers from a failure of logic.
